שבועות 10:2 — Soncino English Talmud

the sin offering of atonement — hence the outer is equated with the inner. R. SIMEON B. JUDAH SAID IN HIS [R. SIMEON B. YOHAI'S] NAME: [THE NEW MOON GOATS ATONE FOR A CLEAN MAN WHO ATE UNCLEAN HOLY FOOD; THE FESTIVAL GOATS, IN ADDITION TO ATONING FOR A CLEAN MAN WHO ATE UNCLEAN HOLY FOOD, ATONE ALSO FOR A CASE WHERE THERE WAS NO KNOWLEDGE EITHER AT THE BEGINNING OR AT THE END; THE OUTER GOAT OF THE DAY OF ATONEMENT, IN ADDITION TO ATONING FOR A CLEAN MAN WHO ATE UNCLEAN HOLY FOOD, AND FOR A CASE WHERE THERE WAS NO KNOWLEDGE EITHER AT THE BEGINNING OR AT THE END, ATONES ALSO FOR A CASE WHERE THERE WAS NO KNOWLEDGE AT THE BEGINNING BUT THERE WAS KNOWLEDGE AT THE END.] What is the difference: the New Moon goats do not atone for that for which the festival goats atone because the text says: [it hath He given you to bear] the iniquity — one iniquity it bears, but it does not bear two iniquities; then let the festival goats also not atone for that for which the New Moon goats atone, because the text says: it [hath He given you to bear the iniquity] — it bears the iniquity, but no other bears the iniquity? — Because [the emphasis on] it does not seem justified to him. What is the difference: the festival goats do not atone for that for which the Day of Atonement goat atones, because the text says: once in the year [shall he make atonement] — this atonement [of the Day of Atonement goat] shall be only once a year; then let the Day of Atonement goat also not atone for that for which the festival goats atone, because it is written: [And Aaron shall make atonement upon the horns of it] once — one atonement it atones, but it does not atone two atonements? [The emphasis on] once does not seem justified to him. Why? — For it is written in connection with the inner goat [and not the outer]. If so, let the festival goats also atone for that for which the Day of Atonement goat atones, because once [in the year] is written in connection with the inner goat [and not the outer]. In reality, [the emphasis on] once does seem justified to him, but here it is different, for the text says: And Aaron shall make atonement upon the horns of it once in the year — the horns, namely, of the inner altar: with reference to this [we say that] it atones one atonement and not two atonements, but with reference to the outer [we may say] it atones even two atonements. Ulla said that R. Johanan said: The regular offerings which are not required for the community are redeemed unblemished. Rabbah sat and stated this law. Said R. Hisda to him: Who heeds you and R. Johanan, your teacher! Whither has the holiness in them departed! He replied to him: Do you not hold that we do not say, ‘whither has the holiness in them departed’? For we learnt in a Mishnah: The remainder of the incense — what was done with it? The wages of the workmen were allocated [from the Temple treasury], and the extra incense was exchanged for this money, and given to the workmen as their wages, and was then re-bought [from them] with the new donations. Now why [should this procedure be permitted]? Let us say, ‘whither has the holiness in them departed’? — He said to him: You argue from incense! Incense is different,^ᵃ^ᵇ^ᶜ^ᵈ^ᵉ^ᶠ^ᵍ^ʰ^ⁱ^ʲ^ᵏ^ˡ^ᵐ^ⁿ^ᵒ^ᵖ^ᵠ^ʳ

^ᵃnote:I.e., the inner goat: Num. XXIX, 11.
^ᵇnote:Lev. X, 17; supra 9b, 10a.
^ᶜnote:Ibid.
^ᵈnote:Why, then, does R. Simeon differentiate, and say that the festival goats do atone for that for which the New Moon goats atone?
^ᵉnote:It hath He given you to bear the iniquity does not necessarily imply that no other goat can hear the iniquity. It may mean that it (the New Moon goat) was also, in addition to other goats, given the power of bearing the iniquity (of a clean man who ate unclean holy food). But the emphasis on iniquity he holds to be justified, for this word is clearly singular: the verse therefore implies that the New Moon goat atones for only one iniquity.
^ᶠnote:Ex. XXX. 10: second half of the verse.
^ᵍnote:Ibid.: first half of the verse.
^ʰnote:Why then does R. Simeon say that the Day of Atonement goat does atone also for that for which the festival goats atone?
^ⁱnote:For, though it is written in connection with the inner goat, it has already been explained that the outer is equated with the inner (v. supra p. 2). Hence, the latter half of the verse: with the blood of the sin offering of atonement once in the year shall he make atonement for it implies that the atonement of the sin offering (i.e., inner goat, and also outer goat, for it has been equated with it) is only once a year, i.e., the other goats (such as the festival goats) cannot make this atonement.
^ʲnote:The first half of the verse does not mention the sin offering (i.e., inner goat), but only the inner altar; therefore we cannot say that the deduction that it atones only one atonement refers also to the outer goat; for the outer goat has been equated with the inner goat, but not with the inner altar; hence the outer goat of the Day of Atonement atones also for that for which the festival goats atone.
^ᵏnote:In the Temple store-room for congregational offerings there had always to be at least six lambs which had been examined and found free from blemish (‘Ar. 13a), in order that there should always be a ready supply for the two daily offerings (Num. XXVIII, 1-4). On the first of Nisan the lambs of the previous year (i.e., the day before) were nor permitted to he sacrificed, because congregational sacrifices were not allowed to be bought with the previous year's donations to the Treasury; hence there were always four lambs left which are not required for the community. These could be redeemed, though they were unblemished, although an individual's offering may not be redeemed unless it has a blemish which disqualifies it as a sacrifice (Men. 101a). The method of redemption was to exchange the four lambs for their money equivalent, the lambs becoming hullin (un-holy), and the money becoming holy, and being utilised for making gold plates to cover the walls and floor of the Holy of Holies. Since the lambs were now not holy, they could be re-bought with the money subscribed in the New Year (1st of Nisan) to the Temple treasury.
^ˡnote:Since they were consecrated bodily (;udv ,ause), and not merely for their value (ohns ,ause), how can they become hullin if they are unblemished?
^ᵐnote:In the case of a congregational offering, as distinct from an individual's offering.
^ⁿnote:Shek. IV, 5.
^ᵒnote:The incense (Ex. XXX, 34-36) was compounded from eleven ingredients: balm, onycha, galbanum, frankincense (in quantities of seventy manehs each in weight), myrrh, cassia, spikenard, saffron (sixteen manehs each), costus (twelve manehs), aromatic bark (three manehs), and cinnamon (nine manehs) — altogether 368 manehs, one for each day of the year (half in the morning, and half in the evening) and three extra for the Day of Atonement (v. Ker. 6a). But in an ordinary lunar year there were 11 manehs over (the lunar year being 354 days); and though these 11 manehs were necessary for supplementing the incense in intercalary years, they had to be bought from the new donations every 1st of Nisan (Tosaf). Some method had to be devised, therefore, of making the remainder of the old incense valid for the new year. — The lye obtained from a species of leek and the Cyprus wine which are mentioned in connection with the incense, were nor actual ingredients, but were used simply for whitening the onycha, and also for making its odour more pungent (Ker. 6a).
^ᵖnote:Omit vbnn in the text. The workmen were the family of Abtinas who were skilled in compounding the incense for the Temple: Yoma 38a.
^ᵠnote:The incense, having been exchanged for the money, became hullin, and could be re-bought with the donations of the new year, becoming holy again, and valid for the new year.
^ʳnote:And not permit the incense which had once been holy to become hullin; yet we do not say this. It is assumed at present that the mortar in which the incense is pounded, being a holy vessel, makes the incense bodily holy.